Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Of course, the Zapruder film was altered to hide the slowing and stopping of the limo, and that of course is a very widely held belief among JFK researchers. Lots of good work has been done on this. Here's a video that I like by Doug Horne.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVaGYxuPQg8

Doug Horne is a real researcher and man of integrity. He's not a shill like the Punk, who said this: 

"The only evidence for how fast the car was moving is the Zapruder film."

Jean Hill put in her affidavit on 11/22/63 to the Sheriff Department that the limo came to a stop. Of course, many, many other witnesses said the same thing. 

Now, let's clear up something once and for all. 

Notice that the white line nearest us is not parallel with the bottom of the picture. The same is true in the Moorman photo, when we consider the line of the limo instead. The cause of that divergence is the angle at which I was standing. It's not due to the slope of the road.

From the same position, I shot straight ahead, with no diagonal angle.

The slope in the road is captured the same. But, notice that the background no longer resembles the Moorman photo. It is completely different. 

The diagonal angle increases the size of the field; more is captured in the picture. Keep in mind that in this image, we deliberately adjusted the position of the rider to capture what you see there, just his right arm. 

But, that could only be done shooting straight across the street. Turning leftward meant that the left hand would always be drawn into the picture. But notice above that even though we don't see the left hand, we do see the left handlebar. And again, we deliberately kept him back to cut off the right hand. But notice how little of the right arm is captured, and notice how high it is in the photo. It's not at the bottom edge, is it? If he came forward another couple inches, the left hand would come into view, and it did.

So, if you look very closely, you do see the first inkling of the left hand there. But, with or without that, it is a far cry from the Moorman photo, which features the right arm only through enormous length, and trailing the bottom edge of the photo.

It's ridiculous. Nobody could duplicate that. If they try it, they are going to get the same thing I got. But again, that background (on mine) doesn't even conform to the Moorman photo. Once you get the angle right to match hers, it is impossible to introduce the right arm first.

So, the so-called arm of BJ Martin in the Moorman photo is a fraud. It is fake. It is physics-lly impossibe. It is crude, lousy art. Look how cartoonish it is, with the clam-like hand. 

And look how good these camera fields match. That's damn good. I know how I got that; it's because I was standing: AT A DIAGONAL. And it proves that the Moorman photo too was taken at a diagonal. 

And you notice the lack of parallel between the line of the limo and the bottom of the photo on the left, and the line in the road and the bottom of the picture on the right. It's due to the same cause: the angularity of the view. IT is NOT due to the slope in the road. 

And Babushka was standing far back behind Brehm. So, she wound up turning right and shooting the limo as it approached.

And right after taking that shot, she turned left and set up her next shot, while waiting for the Kennedys to enter her camera field. Why didn't she just stand at the curb on either side of Brehm? I think she was in on it, and I think she didn't want to get too close, which I can perfectly understand. How close would you want to stand to a Kill Zone?

This is the Muchmore frame which corresponds to the Moorman photo, and it shows Babushka Lady taking the Moorman photo.

The Punk said that there were copies of the Polaroid made before the thumbprint, but we're talking about a different photo (the one that Mary actually took). So, it's completely irrelevant; it is N/A.

Think about it: if they had copies of the original, and then they damaged Mary's, "accidentally" of course, then why didn't they have the decency to make her a fresh copy from the copy they had? Or even offered her both. And think about something else:

Why did they have to keep borrowing Mary's original at all? They had copies of the original, and I don't mean Xerox copies either. On 11/22/63, while Mary did interviews with the press, they took Mary's original to a professional photo lab and made state-of-the-art copies. They certainly were not going to allow her to go home with hers without doing so. But, that very night at midnight, cops stormed her house and demanded her photo back. But why when they had copies? Then, law enforcement kept coming back to borrow her photo. But why when they had copies? Exact replicas. Why did they keep needing hers? 

It's because they wanted the freedom to alter it, and naturally, if they did, they needed to alter hers well. That's why they needed it back even though they had copies.

Well, hopefully the stupid Punk will want to keep going with this because I can't talk about it enough. The fact is that the Moorman photo is a smoking gun. It is a smoking gun of the whole assassination fraud. It's only because Mary's photo must have captured something that challenged the official story of Oswald taking 3 shots from behind that any of this happened. So, it absolutely proves that the official story of the JFK assassination is a lie.